THIS JUST IN: Arkley still an asshole

Hit the link and feast your eyes on a back and forth between Arkley and Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace. While Arkley bloviates in typical fashion that Lovelace is a “liar,” Lovelace responds with a simmering smack down that must have made the angry one’s blood pressure explode:

Given the long list of documented lies that you have told about me, it is incongruous that you should profess any interest in the truth. As usual, the facts and evidence are solidly on my side and thus my faith in the truth does not require your concurrence. I will simply add this to the ever-growing list.

Sims says 66 Lovelace emails were released pursuant to the PRA and more will be posted at the Lost Coast Outpost. Stay tuned.

Arkley’s grammar is so strange. He sounds drunk in those emails. Either that or he took English 101 from Tom Abate

Ed

May 3, 2011 at 4:13 pm

Yer killin’ me Lump.

Robyn Junior

May 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm

“I’ll destroy you, you’re nothing and you won’t have a store anymore if you vote against my project.”

tra

May 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm

In my opinion, the excerpts provided on Hank’s site don’t reflect very well on either Arkley or Lovelace. Both accused the other of lying, without providing any concrete examples, both took snide, sophomoric shots at each other, and neither seemed to be the least bit interested in engaging in any sort of meaningful dialogue.

I mean really, I’ve seen more civil and substantive discussion on blog threads, fer cryin’ out loud! Has the bar been lowered so far that this is what passes for communication between an elected official and a local businessman? I mean I expected this kind of bufoonery from Arkley — he has a well-deserved reputation for hotheadism — but the fact that Lovelace allowed himself to sink to Arkley’s level, rhetorically, well, that did kind of surprise me.

With respect to the confirmation that Lovelace forwarded, to Jen Kalt and Elizabeth Connor, a copy of Kay Backer’s letter — well, so what? It was a public document not covered by any sort of confidential status, so how’s that a “leak?”

Anonymous

May 3, 2011 at 4:32 pm

These emails (from Arkley) are well written compared to others I’ve had the “pleasure” of reading. And the tone is relatively tame. It will be interesting to see what else comes to light.

Keep in mind this was an email exchange, not a pleading for the court. At the time these emails were written there was not an expectation that they would be part of a public records request a week later.

There was no reason for Lovelace to detail all of Arkley’s lies.

Arkley appears uncorked as usual. In contrast, Lovelace appears controlled and to the point.

Decline To State

May 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm

And this is just from the first batch of emails from Sims’s PRA request?!?

Holy Moly! Where do we go from here? Caution: this may become unsuitable to sensitive readers.

This is from Arkley’s PRA request. But given the reaction of the county Sims’s request might not turn up much more.

Anonymous

May 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm

And now folks, we have the Sphincter of the Year award. A year’s supply of Preparation H — to make _______ (fill in the blank) a perfect asshole.

tra

May 3, 2011 at 4:44 pm

In this exchange they both appear to be about as mature as the average high school sophmore.

Now I understand that this was just one e-mail exchange, and I expect that a look at the rest of the e-mails would reveal that Lovelace usually deals with correspondence with County residents in a more professional way, befitting the role of an elected official.

I assume these excerpts were chosen precisely because of the “sparks flying.” I guess if this is the worst example out there, then it’s really a non-issue. Just disappointing that these two people, who many in the county (rightly or wrongly) look to for leadership, would waste their time with that sort of pissing match.

tra, how should one respond to an email that says, in essence, “liar liar pants on fire”? Should Lovelace spend extra time placating Arkley, rather than giving him a “Thanks for the laugh, Rob!”?

Arkley would love to have the county’s full attention, 100%. Too bad for him, he is not the only issue in Humboldt County.

tra

May 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm

how should one respond to an email that says, in essence, “liar liar pants on fire”?

Why respond at all?

Should Lovelace spend extra time placating Arkley

No. But I also don’t think he should be wasting his time with a snotty and hostile response like:

As always, though we obviously have disagreements I do truly look forward to someday finding an issue where we can work side by side. Of course to do so would require that you put the betterment of our community and our economy above your personal agenda. I remain ever hopeful that you may someday demonstrate such willingness.

tra

May 3, 2011 at 5:03 pm

I realize that Lovelace fans are going to tend to view his responses as clever zingers against Arkley, and I have no doubt that Arkley fans probably see his remarks as clever zingers against Lovelace.

Personally I don’t see anything particularly clever about any of it, and more importantly, I don’t see any sort of meaningful communication being attempted on either side.

To me, Arkley’s comments come off as angry, hostile, unprofessional and unhinged, while Lovelace’s comments come off as snotty, hostile, unprofessional and consescending.

So what they share in common is their hostility and lack of professionalism.

Plain Jane

May 3, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I’m hardly non-biased, but it looks to me like Arkley went ape-shit over Lovelace’s note to Backer offering her his first person reports to fill her in on what she missed in the GPU process (not even being a local) and Arkley exploded with the liar accusations, based on 2nd hand (at best) reports, as to what occurred at the GPU meetings. Lovelace spit back that Arkley had told many lies about him so he would just add this to the list.

So, we have Arkley starting the liar accusations based on ADMITTED hearsay in response to an offer of help from Lovelace and Lovelace saying Arkley’s hearsay and many other statements he has made about Lovelace are lies. I know how Judge Judy would rule.

Geist's Ghost

May 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Oh Mark, wadddaya doin?. You have to learn Jill’s basic rule: ignore those e-mails. If you don’t like the person contacting you – freeze em out.

anonichrist

May 3, 2011 at 5:36 pm

Hey Lump & Tra. Pretty good comments digging on Abate.

Oh, by the way….did you read where he was institutionalized for mental illness? Har, Har……that’s even funnier.

Now let’s make fun of some people with cancer or AIDS.

tra

May 3, 2011 at 5:37 pm

“You’re lying. You’re a liar.”

“No, you’re lying and you’re the liar.”

“No, you are!”

“No, you are!”

“I know you are, but what am I?”

“I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”

“Nyah-nyah!”

“Mom! He’s being mean to to me!”

“He started it!”

“No, he started it!”

And so on…

tra

May 3, 2011 at 5:47 pm

I did find this part amusing, where Arkley is apparently complaining about the poor quality of Lovelace’s alleged lies:

…your clear lies, which are primitive and amateurish. You should change your methods…

Apparently it wasn’t just the “lies” themselves that Arkley objected to, it was the appalling lack of sophistication and professionalism of those “lies” that really fried his fanny.

Plain Jane

May 3, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Except “mom” has the e-mails as evidence as to who started the name calling and what it was based on, Tra. Arkley hit and Lovelace hit back. Arkley based his attack on hearsay and Lovelace based his counter attack on personal knowledge. One can be reasonable and still assign guilt based on available evidence.

tra

May 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm

The problem is, the e-mail exchange itself provides no real support for their dueling accusations that the other person has repeatedly lied.

Arkley only provides a vague reference to some incident involving Frank Jager, and Lovelace provides no specifics at all.

They both just call each other liars and trade insults like a couple of crabby children who are long-overdue for a nap.

this blog recycles. it recycles insignificance. ssshhhh… don’t wake up the sleeping dog named reasonable. the reasonably obsessive, that is.

What Now

May 3, 2011 at 7:38 pm

This is the first time I’ve ever had any reason whatsoever to appreciate Mark Lovelace.
Good work, Mark.
KUDOS to Hank Sims and Lost Coast Outpost.

Bien Padre

May 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm

Does tra ever shut the fuck up?

Mitch

May 3, 2011 at 7:54 pm

Which fuck?

Andrew Bird

May 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm

I think Mark deserves some credit for at least reaching out a hand in friendship with the statement that he hopes the two of them can someday work together “side by side.” I don’t see that from the other party. Just venom.

lurch

May 3, 2011 at 8:51 pm

Given the treatment Mark’s regularly receiving from the jerkoff parade over at the Mirror, his equanimity is pretty impressive. Of course, he probably realizes that they are trying mightily to piss him off so he’ll lose his cool. What’s that saying? “el quien se enoja pierde” or something like that.

Meanwhile, I’m moved to wonder if Heraldo, you or anyone else around here has a pile of Arkley’s emails. A bit of textual analysis on a large enought sample might be quite revealing.

A few years ago after T-S reporter James Faulk received a cranky missive he suggested everyone who gets an Arkley nastygram get together, or pool the letters, or something like that. No one stepped forward as far as I know.

It’s seems obvious that Arkley is used to cowing people. Lovelace isn’t cowed.

Mr. Nice

May 3, 2011 at 9:34 pm

Arkley tryna say

People are much smarter than you think.

Bitch, yes we are.

Thirdeye

May 3, 2011 at 9:48 pm

Only the most dedicated Lovelace sycophants could fail to see that he was on the same level as Arkley.

He wasn’t just snotty in response to Arkley. He was also snotty to Kay Backer:

“Hi Kay. Just as a note, I was involved in the GPU at
the time that the small group of people ‘walked out’ and formed HELP because they didn’t like the direction that the majority of the public wanted to go with the General Plan. Since you weren’t there at the time, I’d be happy to inform you of the realities of history.”

What substance is there to Lovelace’s claim to knowing what “the majority of the public” wanted for the GPU? The recent public hearing on the GPU indicates otherwise. His perception of “the realities of history” seems distorted by the reality distortion field he chooses to inhabit.

Snotty is in the eye of the beholder, Thirdeye. An offer of help (as opposed to HELP) is only snotty to someone who has a bad attitude. It’s obvious that the people Arkley (who wasn’t at the meetings) talked to (who walked out of the meetings) know less than Lovelace (who didn’t walk out of the meetings) and his offer to fill Backer in (since she at the meetings either) was generous, not snotty. Accusing someone of lying, however, based on 2nd or 3rd hand information, is poor judgement. Arkley, as an attorney, knows how unreliable hearsay is but, like all people with his right wing bully mindset, he doesn’t care about truth if a lie better suits his agenda.

It is WWE now, the wrestlers lost their lawsuit to keep WWF. WWF is now World Wildlife Fund, WWE is World Wrestling Entertainment.

Just an FYI

Plain Jane

May 3, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Furthermore, what the public showing up to the meetings (who couldn’t have been at the previous meetings because they claim they didn’t even know there WERE meetings) are saying now doesn’t mean it is what the people who actually showed up to the earlier meetings said then. The same developer spokespeople have been at every GPU meeting, as have those opposed to the developer agenda. Stirring up an angry mob with lies is a nasty tactic, but it’s what the right does best.

Anonymous

May 3, 2011 at 11:23 pm

Andrew Bird says:
“May 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I think Mark deserves some credit for at least reaching out a hand in friendship with the statement that he hopes the two of them can someday work together “side by side.” I don’t see that from the other party. Just venom.”
What else could you possibly expect from such a malighnant shitsack?

What Now

May 3, 2011 at 11:24 pm

Andrew Bird says:
“May 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I think Mark deserves some credit for at least reaching out a hand in friendship with the statement that he hopes the two of them can someday work together “side by side.” I don’t see that from the other party. Just venom.”
Wha else could you possibly expect from such a malignant shitsack?

Anonymous

May 3, 2011 at 11:33 pm

Funny…WWF now also references the popular interactive online game “Words with Friends.” Just saying.

As for Arkley’s emails, this example represents a mild exchange on his part, truly…very mid. I’ve seen much worse, unfortunately.

lurch

May 3, 2011 at 11:39 pm

“You will have the same exposure.”

Trans: I’m coming for you just like I did for Bonnie. I will destroy you with the Big Smear.

Thirdeye

May 3, 2011 at 11:47 pm

PJ, we’ll never know what portions of people thought what at the earlier meetings, what portion walked out, etc. But it is definitely not valid for Lovelace to claim knowledge of what “the majority of the public wanted” strictly from within the Healthy Humboldt/Humboldt Watershed Council bubble he inhabited. Offering to “fill someone in on the reality of history” based on the thinnest of claims to knowing such (due to viewing it through his own strong bias) is the essence of snotty arrogance and condescension. It can hardly be seen as a sincere expression of a helpful attitude. It is, in essence, saying, “my view is the valid one and those who disagree are tainted.” Unfortunately, you seem to share Lovelace’s attitude. Everyone who disagrees with your position on the GPU is either a right-winger, a developer, or some rube whipped into a frenzy by lies. But one piece of reality staring you in the face is that, when the chips were down, two thirds of the citizens at the last GPU hearing (according to Richard Marks’ count and reasonable by my observation), and several local governing bodies said the GPU process had gone off the rails. You and Lovelace need to re-think how you gauge what the public wants from the GPU.

Matt

May 4, 2011 at 1:45 am

Rob comes across as drunk or unhinged or both. Mark is perhaps snotty but at least well-written. Regardless, I agree that Mark probably shouldn’t really bother to respond when he receives nasty emails. Something along the lines of a boilerplate polite brushoff such as: “Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your enthusiasm in our county’s issues. Sincerely, Mark” might be more appropriate.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 7:05 am

The latest installment of the e-mail saga has Kay Backer writing an insulting e-mail to Lovelace to which he replies, “Thanks Kay!”

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 7:06 am

the reason all those people boycotted the meetings at the beginning was because when different ideas were brought up, they were considered “off the table” before the public had any input.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 7:22 am

If they boycotted the meetings, how would they know different ideas were “off the table” without any public input? Who told them these ideas were “off the table?” Links to news sources required.

Mitch

May 4, 2011 at 7:24 am

You know, even elected officials sometimes get fed up and blow off steam. To me, at least, it just shows they’re not robotic.

Perhaps the good guys are complete saints on lowbrow TV… it just doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Of course, if Humboldt’s taxpayers would like to pay for a press spokesperson for each Supervisor, and a makeup/blowdry kit…

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 7:36 am

I remember the angry factions that lined up to argue about how to spend the money Harry Adorni left to benefit the kids of Eureka’s North-of-Fourth neighborhood.

They shouted and yelled at each other for years until the whole town was just sick of it.

Finally, a compromise was reached and the Adorni Center, a beautiful structure, was built.

There was only one problem. That beautiful building is focused more on serving the needs of adults than the needs of the young people Harry Adorni cared so much about.

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 7:42 am

If they boycotted the meetings, how would they know different ideas were “off the table” without any public input? Who told them these ideas were “off the table?”

this came from staff. the meetings were supposed to be scoping sessions from what i remember, but the county had already determined the scope, so you got to pick from the pre-determined ideas within the scope that was handed down. why waste your time going to those meetings? i don’t have links, but there is a significant paper trail since 2004 documenting this.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 8:01 am

That’s truly absurd, 7:42. Staff told these people who didn’t attend meetings that they had already determined the scope? The only excuse conveyed publicly for why these people didn’t go to meetings was that they didn’t even know there were meetings. Now you claim they knew but were discouraged from attending by staff but don’t have anything to support that except an unsupported claim that there is a “paper trail.” Did these people who were discouraged from attending meetings share the developer’s agenda? Do you even know what these “pre-determined ideas” were that had to be picked from? Are you aware of the wide scope of these “pre-determined” ideas which are being considered? Precisely, what would YOU like to see in the GPU that isn’t included in the “pre-determined” ideas?

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 8:27 am

jane,
they went to the meetings at the beginning. when they were told various options and ideas were off the table they quit going and formed help. you are mixing apples and oranges here. i am talking about the email that arkley sent to lovelace. there are numerous other people who didn’t attend various meetings because they weren’t aware of the meetings.

my claim they were discouraged by staff is supported by public testimony and a paper trail. i am not going to provide links, the documents are too numerous and span 7 years.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 8:34 am

You didn’t answer my question about what YOU think should have been “on-the-table” but wasn’t included in any of the wide variety of options which were still “on-the-table?” Surely you have at least one example of an idea which wasn’t included in any of the options being considered? (Stop the GPU isn’t an option due to legal requirements.)

What Now

May 4, 2011 at 11:24 am

An earlier poster used this as benchmark for fact:
“according to Richard Marks’ “.

Citing THAT individual is one quick surefire way to lose ALL credibility.

And the one sure thing in this world is that Arkley still is. Some things never change.

Thirdeye

May 4, 2011 at 12:06 pm

So, WN, what was your count of the pro/con sides at the hearing? By my observation it supports what Marks said. You have yet to establish any credibility of your own.

What Now

May 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Turdeye,I have no inclination to establish my credibility with asshats such as Richard Marks or YOUR pathetic self.

skippy

May 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm

As PJ previously referenced at 7:05, Mr. Sims’ LCO site published another letter this morning, this from the lobbyist Kay Backer to Supervisor Lovelace:

“Mark,
After reading the exchange of Es between you and Rob, I have changed my mind about you being “bright”.

No thinking person could possibly claim Rob Arkley is selfish or driven by his self interests. Look around you. No one in the county has been more giving and generous than Rob and Cherie Arkley. While you are working to get the taxpayers grant money, Rob is providing jobs to many families in Humboldt county, as well as across the country.

Wake up Mark….your old tricks are no longer working. People are figuring you out.
Kay”

Over at Lost Coast Outpost, Hank notes that if the intention of Arkley’s public records request was to “out” the identity of Heraldo, the attempt has thus far failed.

Hank points out that there was a three-day gap between when Lovelace forwards the Backer letter to Kalt and Connor and when Heraldo’s post appeared. He also notes that the Backer letter (which, again, was a public document, not some confidential communication) clearly was already in circulation among plenty of other people even before Lovelace forwarded it to Kalt and Connor.

It does seem unlikely that if Kalt or Conner were Heraldo, they would have waited 3 days to post about the letter.

It’s possible that Kalt or Conner forwarded it on to Heraldo at some point, but again, sofuckingwhat? It was a public document, and there’s no reason to believe that Lovelace was the only one circulating it.

Of course the whole idea that this public records request was intended to “out” Heraldo seems to have been speculation all along, so perhaps that was never the goal in the first place?

On the other hand, if the goal was just to expose the fact that Lovelace had the capacity to be just as childish, hostile, and unprofessional as Arkley, then I guess the public records request has been something of a qualified success for Arkley. Qualified, of course, by the fact that the e-mail exchange that was posted here yesterday makes Arkley look just as ridiculous, perhaps more so.

Eric Kirk

May 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

From my perspective, the whole discussion is getting much more attention than it needs. A couple of public figures passionate about their stands and under constant stress caught in a momentary angry exchange which wasn’t intended for public consumption. We, those of us who put ourselves out there in public exchange, have all been there. It’s not a big deal.

Did Mark violate any rules by distributing the letter? Nobody has cited anything so far, and it’s all a public record anyway. That he’s friends and allies with Jen and Elizabeth? Stop the presses!

Much ado.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 1:25 pm

Does anyone think that Thirdeye believes the opinions of people who speak at public meetings proportionally represent public opinion?

Eric Kirk

May 4, 2011 at 1:26 pm

No, but it’s a measure of the organization of each side. Seemed kind of even to me by the end.

Not A Native

May 4, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Eric has a reasonable perspective on this.

For those trying to argue whether Arkley or Lovelace was more factual, thats just totally bogus. The arguers here are endlessly repeating their already formed opinions which clearly predated these emails. Thats the unchanging MO of tra who has hours of free time daily to obsessively post whatever happens to flash into his head.

These emails are exchanges between a publically elected official and a constituent. Lovelace was elected, the voters selected him. His ‘job’ is to evaluate public sentiment. Far as I know, Arkley hasn’t been selected by any group as its representative. Although these emails suggest Arkley has some relationship to HELP, it isn’t clearly stated.

And analysing whether Lovelace or Arkley proved their assertions is similarly foolish and takes these emails way out of context.

Thirdeye

May 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm

PJ, which metric based on currently available information would you prefer? Do you just prefer to parrot whatever Lovelace has to say about public opinion (which was also based on attendance at public meetings)?

WN, with debating skills like those, you should try a run for Arcata City Council or Fourth District Supervisor. You are right in league with Lovelace and Brinton. You may take that as a compliment if you wish.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm

How much organizing did the “Lovelace faction” do, Eric? Any newspaper ads, mailers, door hangers, etc?

Kale

May 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm

Although I agree with Eric and others that this is much ado about not much, I think it would be even more hilarious if Mark used boilerplate language as suggested by Matt @ 1:45am…

I think that would ruffle even more of Arkley’s feathers and take far less effort.

Eric Kirk

May 4, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Eric has a reasonable perspective on this.

From NAN?!!!

Be still my heart!

Not A Native

May 4, 2011 at 3:35 pm

Eric, its a Newtonian principle. Even disoriented dogs float to the top every so often to find a bone.

tra

May 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Some people can “disagree without being disagreeable.” Others, as Lovelace and Arkley have demonstrated, have a harder time with that.

And then there are those who can’t even agree without being disagreeable!

Eric Kirk

May 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm

A reasonable disoriented dog? I’ll take it any way I can get it!

High Finance

May 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm

This whole thread gave me quite the chuckle these last couple of days.

To hear the likes of Plain Jane, Mouse, What Now and others criticise RA’s lack of decorum is priceless !

And once again TRA lives up to her name. Funny is watching Heraldo argue with her as he cannot even understand her points !

Not A Native

May 4, 2011 at 5:24 pm

I calls ’em like I sees ’em

tra

May 4, 2011 at 5:40 pm

I wrote yesterday at 4:44pm,

Now I understand that this was just one e-mail exchange, and I expect that a look at the rest of the e-mails would reveal that Lovelace usually deals with correspondence with County residents in a more professional way, befitting the role of an elected official.

Indeed, according to today’s post on the Lost Coast Outpost, other Lovelace e-mails show a much more normal, professional kind of response to correspondence about the GPU that came from other members of the public. Lovelace’s reponses to these other folks were little bit on the form letter side, but apparently their letters to him had been more or less form letters too.

Ha Ha Ha HiFi. I only said that Rob continues to be as claimed above. Nothing more but that’s certainly enough, isn’t it?

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 8:54 pm

Isn’t he in Baton Rouge these days?

Anonymous

May 4, 2011 at 11:23 pm

“High Finance says:
May 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
This whole thread gave me quite the chuckle these last couple of days”
Simple mind, simple pleasures, HighlyFried.
Good to know that a drunk little monkey like you can find enough brain cells to identify entertainment.

What Now

May 4, 2011 at 11:25 pm

“High Finance says:
May 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
This whole thread gave me quite the chuckle these last couple of days”

Simple pleasure for a simple mind, HighlyFried.
Good to know you haven’t killed all of your brain cells off in a drunken stupor and can still find an occasional giggle.

What Now

May 4, 2011 at 11:25 pm

Damned Windows.

Plain Jane

May 4, 2011 at 11:46 pm

WTF did I say about lack of decorum? Why can’t HiFi whine without naming “all the usual suspects?”

kaivalya

May 5, 2011 at 6:29 am

Lovelace and arkley deserve eachother.
Too bad the rest of us have to put up with them…

Anonymous

May 5, 2011 at 6:35 am

You didn’t answer my question about what YOU think should have been “on-the-table” but wasn’t included in any of the wide variety of options which were still “on-the-table?” Surely you have at least one example of an idea which wasn’t included in any of the options being considered? (Stop the GPU isn’t an option due to legal requirements.)

pj, first of all, the variety was not that wide. you had the current plan, which they called ‘d’ as the baseline and they added restrictions from there.

this is like having a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being pave the planet, 5 being balanced, and 10 being moratorium and giving people the option of choosing from a range of options consisting of 5, 6, 7, and 8, with 7 being the preferred option.

this, i believe is what people objected to: the house had the deck stacked.

the old plan was pretty balanced, it is still in effect and you don’t see any significant growth. what a waste of money.

Plain Jane

May 5, 2011 at 8:47 am

The old plan is not in compliance with state law, 6:35. You still didn’t name anything that you would like to see included that isn’t included in any of the options being considered. You seem to be the type who just wants to vote for none of the above without even knowing what any of the above is.

High Finance

May 5, 2011 at 9:10 am

You guys are so harsh !!

If I respected your opinons, What Now & 11.23pm, my feelings would be so hurt !!

TimH

May 5, 2011 at 11:35 am

“The old plan is not in compliance with state law, 6:35.”

citation please.

Plain Jane

May 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm

“State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors) of a local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city, city and county, or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local general plan. Housing element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the State rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. Housing element law also requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review local housing elements for compliance with State law and to report its written findings to the local government.”

“NEW: HOUSING ELEMENT LAW AMENDED
On October 15, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 2 by Senator Gilbert Cedillo, which amends GC Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of State Housing Element Law. This legislation requires local jurisdictions to strengthen provisions for addressing the housing needs of the homeless, including the identification a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit. This legislation will take effect January 1, 2008 and will apply to jurisdictions with housing elements due June 30, 2008 and after. To assist jurisdictions in meeting this new requirement, the State Department of Housing and Community Development issued a technical assistance memo.”

Anonymous at 6:35 is perhaps misinformed. Alternative C is, in many ways, less restrictive than the existing framework plan – for instance, Alternative C proposes policies that allows more residential development on TPZ and ag lands than existing policies allow.

As far as TimH’s request is concerned, the current General Plan is outdated in many ways: from being severely lacking in state mandated affordable housing inventory, to policies that don’t consider “complete streets” as required under the Complete Streets Act and Caltrans Deputy Directive 64; to the decline in salmon populations and their subsequent Endangered Species Act listing in the 90’s, to rivers listed as impaired pursuant to the Clean Water Act, etc.

TimH

May 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm

PJ, they updated the housing element.

I agree, some things are outdated, but illegal?

“Alternative C proposes policies that allows more residential development on TPZ and ag lands than existing policies allow.”

Where did you find that?

Reinventing The Wheel

May 5, 2011 at 1:54 pm

I attended the first Housing Element workshops for the current GPU several years ago. As usual, the room was filled with developer-interests presenting their laundry-list of requests that were dutifully included as options at the following meeting. A process repeated for years.

When I observed that there were inadequate options being considered to generate affordable housing, and no references to SRO’s, Kay Backer responded as if someone were trying to rain on her private parade, “tenements? You want us to build tenements? That’s social engineering”.

If we had community-interest media, many more citizens would be outraged to read how an outside lobbyist and gaggle of developers are fighting to continue over-exploiting public infrastructure for their personal goldmines. In effect, how a tiny privileged class can attend every “public” meeting en mass, have every request included, then act as if they own the process, are in their private living room, and, thus, feel quite comfy to throw little tantrums when an actual independent member of the local community (an outsider!) makes a single request!

While the 80% of county residents that can’t afford to buy a home are watching their streets deteriorate and fill with debris, sewer bills skyrocket and property crime explode…a small group of radicals is downtown fighting against every affordable housing ordinance, and for their “right to sprawl”, regardless of the mounting public costs.

And no local newspaper dares to report it.

Plain Jane

May 5, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Tim, It’s “out dated” because its out of compliance with state law. The quote you asked about isn’t from me.

TimH

May 5, 2011 at 3:33 pm

How could they have “no project” as an option then?

lurch

May 5, 2011 at 3:48 pm

the old GP allows development that DFG and the federal wildlife agencies have strongly suggested are likely to lead to ‘jeopardy’ for species listed now – in part b/c the old plans did not provide suff protections for their habitats. Similarly, the rivers themselves, and the bay, are listed as impaired in no small part b/c of what the GP has allowed.

Not A Native

May 5, 2011 at 4:12 pm

PJ, anon 6:35 is miffed because county staff didn’t devote time and effort to her option 1, pave the planet or close options 2,3,4.

The staff also didn’t consider sending all hippies out of the county or declaring HumCo a Asian/Hispanic/Black/Native American free zone. Both are common sense solutions to increase housing availability. Thats reason enough to boycott meetings that will obviously be led by biased planners.

TimH

May 5, 2011 at 4:48 pm

“in part b/c the old plans did not provide suff protections for their habitats.”

So I am getting a use permit and have so far hired a botanist, biologist, forester, surveyor, engineer, and a cultural resources expert to ensure that we do not harm any endangered species, plants, disturb any cultural resources or artifacts, and ensure no water leaving the site can or will impact any nearby waterways. This is under the current rules. This seems to contradict your assessment, at least from my point of view.

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 5, 2011 at 6:11 pm

But Tim wait,

Please read and understand this part:

When a violation occurs in critical habitat after the fact, is it really observed? Then, when YOU or anyone else (PRIOR TO THE FACT) IS REQUIRED to do that which gets destroyed by other citizens after the fact, where is YOUR Equal Protection of the law if your economic and social opportunities were taken from you unjustifiably when considering the damages perpetuated by the very same policy makers who help to cover over and cover-up their inadequate and manipulated actions and re-actions?

Now please understand a bit why I just wrote that because it is not to reflect anything but the abuses put upon development for which suggest that something within thatdevelopment is to be protected. If the protection is not present after-the-fact, then guess which local agencies and departments will “cover-up” the abuse by using word games to intentionally set-up a legal process. WHY? Did a complaint form AND MONEY or NO MONEY accompany the evidence which was submitted that would require the county to “GO BACK AND REVISIT” their own documentation and legal word usages to enforce that wich various departments spend tax dollars on to come-up with processes that create mitigations and conditions.

Ya see Tim, and I know you know this, there are games that exist in county and state departments where those who criticize or complain often get attacked by and through lack of equal protections of local and state law (laws not being ENFORCED or UPHELD), not with guns, but by the intentional and willful blindnesses of personnel/public employees through manipulated observations by those onsite-inspectors who are supposed to honestly, ethically, morally and legally verify “truthful” on-site status(es). Now, how discretional do you think it is to be able to say whatever to cover-up local government agency abuses, past, present or speculated in the future?

It is really getting bad in our neck of the woods and it is not precluded to just this county. We are in a heap of hurt in this country. Anyhow, good points you bring out.

So, the information so many have (whether they realize it or not) suggests THAT: either the development crowd can use the evidence to justify its abuses and concerns AND the non-development crowd can use the evidence to justify its abuses and concerns.

So,Tim, how do you think truth plays out when it can benefit and hurt at the same time the very crowds that gather to take sides?

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District

Bien Padre

May 5, 2011 at 8:41 pm

I wonder if the HOF does Twitter.

Bien Padre

May 5, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Okay, HOJ.

Snickerdoodles

May 6, 2011 at 1:07 am

I think he thinks too much about how brilliant his thoughts are. But I don’t really know because I can’t parse much from the goobledygook he spews.

Because he’s a pathetically delusional jackass.
He resents having to share “his world’ with the rest of us.

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 6, 2011 at 8:05 am

Snickerdoodles says:
May 6, 2011 at 1:07 am
I think he thinks too much about how brilliant his thoughts are. But I don’t really know because I can’t parse much from the goobledygook he spews.

Response: Yet, you still try? Now, which agendized group or government department did you work for again?
Ah, that is right, your a traceless nameless, but not monikerless, manipulator. No wonder America is an unwashed fecal filled toilet – people are living in FEAR who worry about the consequences of their right to free speech, lola. America is burning hotter…….

JL

Plain Jane

May 6, 2011 at 8:12 am

“But I don’t really know because I can’t parse much from the goobledygook he spews.”

After initially thinking he was too far over my head to understand, it became apparent that he’s out of range for just about everyone – orbiting Pluto.

Mitch

May 6, 2011 at 8:20 am

Bien Padre @8:41,

Yes, sure. Here’s one:

“When a violation occurs in critical habitat after the fact, is it really observed? Then, when YOU or anyone else (PRIOR TO THE FACT) IS REQU”

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 6, 2011 at 8:21 am

I could never meet or match your manipulated anger PJ, never:-). Your post about John and sex on that Happy Birthday Humboldt County thread shows your great inability to debate and counter.

JL

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 6, 2011 at 8:25 am

Mitch,

Hmmm?

Anyhow, Good example about Twitter – no wonder so many people’s thoughts are fragmented.

JL

Plain Jane

May 6, 2011 at 8:29 am

HOJ can debate “Fuck Pierson’s ads, and fuck you too.” if he chooses, I prefer to make fun of it. Isn’t it funny that he attacked me for my bad joke but not a word of criticism for the post which invited it?

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 6, 2011 at 8:47 am

PJ,

Lame.

JL

Plain Jane

May 6, 2011 at 8:51 am

HOJ, 100% disabled.

Anonymous

May 6, 2011 at 10:04 am

Can’t we just get back to discussing what an ass Arkley is?

TimH

May 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Jeff,
If you are saying the same rules seem apply to differently to people, I would say that sometimes it does indeed appear that way.

Anonymous

May 6, 2011 at 3:29 pm

Why is it OK to say “that’s so lame” – isn’t that disrespectful of the disabled?

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"

May 7, 2011 at 9:51 am

Hey Tim,

Yes, equal protection of rules (mitigations and conditions, community plans, county codes, code enforcement post development, etc… for development approval are included)

IS NO LESS THAN

equal application of the rules.

When appeareance is county documentation and its own codexed standards, appearance is an understatement to say the least. It really comes down to the tax dollar wastes, public employment careers and embarrassments for those who filed state mandated documents that no longer are accurate. Further, the exposure of jurisdictional/department process flaws and employee willful blindnesses when covering-up development abuses after the development was signed off for tax dollar fundings and local regulatory controls and enforcements is an issue.

So, in a nutshell, both developers and non-developers get hurt, yet still blame each other over many of the impacts that are not caused by either, but caused by the future property owners who defy the standards, conditions and covenents that the developer and the non-developers in the community haggle over, then and now and probably more later today and tomorrow and into the future. The key to uncover “development and environmental” truth is code enforcement, but it also embarrasses the local government afficianados; so, they lie and cover-up through frauds that are played off as negligience to match government code sections that protect public employees for negligience. In my belief, political and business negligience is less a truthful defense more than ever at any time in history.

But hey, the CDS needs development permits to create and generate taxes for funding, otherwise funding is all grant laiden.

Taxes are more important than codes/laws to the county because the county uses its power and control to not enforce codes/laws upon those whose environmental impacts and damages after the development has been signed off will embarrass the county employees who won’t acknowledge that it is family units that are causing many environmental impacts within development projects after they move in. This is not the fault of the developer or the non-developer, simply the post-development property owners who defy development standards, codes, laws, etc…

It is a regulatory insider’s hush, hush issue.

JL

Anonymous

May 7, 2011 at 8:18 pm

you need a better hobby dude

What Now

May 7, 2011 at 11:19 pm

Sorry I didn’t follow the thread, PJ.
I have just been skipping over HOJ’s ramblings since the end of last year.
After spending a maddening amount of time previous to then digging through his tireless self promotions without finding a single pearl of wit or wisdom I concluded any further efforts were just a waste of time.

Congratulations on the understatement of the year, Anon, but you lose points for inferring somehow that I was complaining that the Mayo post was mean. I was complaining that it was infantile and has no place on a news blog.